[2026:RJ-JP:4377] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5216/2025 Durg Singh S/o Shri Bhawani Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Rajpura, Police Station Kanchhola, District Shahpura Bhilwara, Raj. (At Present Confined In District Jail Tonk) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9772/2025 Surajmal S/o Shri Bhuwana, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Rajpura, Police Station Kanchola, District Bhilwara. At Present Confined In District Jail Tonk. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/01/2026 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.334/2024 registered at Police Station Baroni, District Tonk for offences punishable under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter. [2026:RJ-JP:4377] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5216/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that prosecution is a highly doubtful and that some memos prepared at the spot do not bear the signature of the petitioner-Durg Singh, which shows that entire case has been prepared in the police station. He further submits that alleged recovered contraband opium (3 kg) is slightly above the commercial quantity. He argues that the petitioner-Suraj Mal, who is brother of the accused-petitioner Drug Singh, has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of the fact that vehicle belonging to him was allegedly used for the transportation of the contraband opium. He further argues that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that alleged recovered contraband opium is slightly above the commercial quantity; charge-sheet has been filed; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything [2026:RJ-JP:4377] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5216/2025] on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1). Durg Singh S/o Shri Bhawani Singh, and (2). Surajmal S/o Shri Bhuwana shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only), each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. Before accepting the bail bonds, the learned trial Court is directed to verify the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act. If the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not found to be correct, the bail bonds shall not be accepted. 8. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO shall record the presence of the petitioner in Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned [2026:RJ-JP:4377] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5216/2025] SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/13-14